tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post6277375808357975885..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Shallit amidst the Klingons; Scientific Atheism finds its audiencemregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-52705819133579145652011-07-17T09:29:11.004-04:002011-07-17T09:29:11.004-04:00The nut says,
"Radioactive decay is a random ...The nut says,<br />"Radioactive decay is a random process."<br />The genius says,<br />"We can model radioactive decay with a random process." Big difference. <br /><br />The nut puts stock in a paradigm having a long list of associated anomalies. The genius finds a better paradigm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-14809796096135820752011-07-14T20:17:43.346-04:002011-07-14T20:17:43.346-04:00"But, but", will respond the typical ath..."But, but", will respond the typical atheist genius, "Pascal's Wager has been REFUTED! It doesn't prove God AT ALL!!!"<br /><br />As if it were offered as a proof rather than a simple exhortation not to be a close-minded, frivolous dumb-ass about the whole question, given the stakes.Matteohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18996512336482032812011-07-14T13:15:46.936-04:002011-07-14T13:15:46.936-04:00Anon wrote:
"...My friends have confidence in...Anon wrote:<br />"...My friends have confidence in thier beliefs without the need for evidence..."<br /><br />Fair enough. If they realize they are just that: <b>"beliefs"</b> and that such "evidence" is unscientific by nature. <br />Being subjective, they should understand that my beliefs are counter to thiers, and should they 'misuse' their own belief in a manner that offends my objective view of morality, I will oppose them with all force necessary and available. Most people will do the same. <br />On the other hand, should they decide conduct themselves as decent human beings, for their own selfish reasons, I would be glad to tolerate them; regardless of their limiting world views. I would however, as friend in your position, advise them to carefully study Blaise Pascal's famous argument or 'wager' if they have any sense of wonder left <i>at all</i>. <br />Here it is, for your friends, ad reducto:<br /><i>"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-885685712945663122011-07-14T09:29:09.207-04:002011-07-14T09:29:09.207-04:00Shallit, a.k.a. Clouseau, may try to profess that ...Shallit, a.k.a. Clouseau, may try to profess that radioactive decay is a real world example of true randomness, I thought that was the same abuse of mathematics he is supposed to be an expert on. Oh well, he is crank. That's why none of my four atheist friends have never heard of him. <br /><br />The mathematical content of his blog is nil, rather it is just a cyclical pissing contest projecting the insecurities of a pompous, egocentric drama queen with a disjoint persona. <br /><br />My friends have confidence in thier beliefs without the need for evidence, and its misuse. And I accept that, and respect them for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74189781964443682942011-07-13T16:44:18.112-04:002011-07-13T16:44:18.112-04:00@Anon:
[Sad to see you running out of material th...@Anon:<br /><br />[Sad to see you running out of material that early, Mike.]<br /><br />I'm in a target rich environment, as long as there are atheists. <br /><br />MikeMike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-57440537850957454202011-07-13T15:47:30.743-04:002011-07-13T15:47:30.743-04:00Sad to see you running out of material that early,...Sad to see you running out of material that early, Mike.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-88264371778592028952011-07-13T12:28:33.459-04:002011-07-13T12:28:33.459-04:00Shallit, by the way, is not a mathematician. He is...Shallit, by the way, is not a mathematician. He is a computer scientist. <br /><br />People Mike compares him to are at best washed-up scientists (Behe, Sternberg, and Minnich). Dembski is not a scientist, either: his degrees are in mathematics, philosophy, and theology and he certainly does not do science. Wells did a postdoc in molecular biology, but he is not a practicing scientist. And Paul Nelson? Come on, Mike!oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-38177081974131376232011-07-13T12:22:46.951-04:002011-07-13T12:22:46.951-04:00You need to get out more often, Matteo.
Joseph F...You need to get out more often, Matteo. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.gs.washington.edu/faculty/felsenstein.htm" rel="nofollow">Joseph Felsenstein</a>, Professor of Genome Sciences and of Biology; Adjunct Professor of Computer Science and of Statistics at the University of Washington. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.ped.fas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/" rel="nofollow">Martin Novak</a>, Professor of Biology and of Mathematics; Director of Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard.<br /><br />These are just a couple of examples.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-72955071308734467292011-07-13T11:42:14.489-04:002011-07-13T11:42:14.489-04:00"Creationists abuse mathematics".
Last ..."Creationists abuse mathematics".<br /><br />Last I checked, Darwinists won't go anywhere <em>near</em> mathematics. They shriek like schoolgirls every time anyone starts doing the probability calculations one would think would be necessary when promulgating a theory relying on chance. <br /><br />(Cue angry atheists shouting that Natural Selection is the OPPOSITE OF CHANCE!!!--to which I reply: One might as well argue that since a casino is <em>guaranteed by law</em> to pay out when certain conditions are met, there is no gambling going on there).Matteohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.com